"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder".

'Beauty' has nothing to do with the eyes of the beholder!

The finding undermines the theory that people develop the idea of beauty from the experience of interacting with different individuals.

If this is so, than how can any statement be made about the biology of beauty? If everyone has their own idea of what is attractive and what is ugly, and these ideas vary from place and time to time, then what can possibly be said about the beauty-reaction of the human species, other than that it is a matter of personnel taste? The answer is that in every instance there do appear to be basic rules operating. These rules leave open the precise nature of the object of beauty, but explained how we come to possess a beauty- reaction in the first place and how it is governed and influenced to day.

If we ignore man made artifacts for the moment and concentrate on the response to natural objects; the first discovery to be made is that beauty objects are not isolated phenomena- they comes in-group. They can be classified. Flowers, butterflies, birds, rocks, trees, clouds, all the environmental elements, we find so attractive come in many different shapes, colors and sizes. When we look at anyone specimens we are seeing in our mind’s eye, every other specimen we have met before. When we see a new flower, we see it against our background knowledge of every other flower we have encounters previously. Our brain has started away all the information in a special file labelled ‘flowers’ and soon as our eyes settle on a new one, the visual impact it makes is instantly checked against all that stored data. What we are seeing really only because a flower after this complex compassion has been made.

In other words, the human brain functions as a magnificent. Classifying machine and every time we walk through landscape it is busy feeding in the new experience and comparing them with the old. The brain classifies everything we see. The survival value of this procedure is obvious enough. Our ancient ancestors like other mammals needed to know the details of the world around them. A monkey for instance, has to know many different kinds of trees and bushes in its forest home, and needs to be able to tell which one is poisonous and which thorny. If it is to survive, a monkey has to become a good Botanist. In the same way a lion has to become a good Zoologist, able to tell at a glance which prey species is which, how fast it can run and which escape pattern, it is likely to use.

Early man also had to become a master of observation, with our acute knowledge of every plant and animal, shape, color, pattern, movement, sound and smell. The only way to do this was to develop a powerful urge to classify; everything met with in daily life. It becomes important that it developed its own independent existence. It becomes as basic and distinct as the need to feed, mate or sleep. The human animal is a master classifier of information and almost, only classified information will do, providing it is encountered in the real environment and seen to be part of the world in which she / he lives.

It is texophilic urge that is at the root of our response to beauty. When we hear a new bird-song for the first time, or walk into a garden, we have not seen before. Our response to the sounds or to the arrangement of flowers may be intensely pleasurable and we have not seen before. Our response to the sounds or to the arrangement of flowers may be intensely pleasurable and we say “How beautiful.” The source of the pleasure seems to be the song itself, or the garden itself, but it is not. It is new experience as checked against all previous experiences in its particular category. The new song is instantaneously compared with all similar songs we have before the garden with all previous gardens we have seen. If we find beauty, it is comparative, not intrinsic, relative not absolute.

But if beautiful is a matter is classifiable relationships then so is ugliness, and it is still necessary to define the difference between the two. The answer lies in the way we have set up “our classes” when classifying the world around us. Each class or category is recognized, because certain sets of objects have common proportions, which make them similar but not identical. Lumping, them together on the basis of their shared properties is the way we arrange them in our minds.

Despite our countries innate modesty, there is no doubt that we are a body-fixated society. From the days of Madhubala, Nargis, Vaheeda Rahman, Sharmila Tagore, Zeenat Aman, Madhuri Dixit, AishwaraRai to Bipasha Basu and Mallika Sherawat today, it’s rather clear what Indian men want. The Male gaze is sometimes appreciative, often critical and always all pervasive.

Attraction, at deep, biological level, is all about survival of the species. So how male react to females stems from their perception of the latter’s health and capability to produce healthy offspring. A high waist-to –hip ratio and large breasts have been visual signals of fertility from time immemorial as well. The importance of physical appearance has been steadily rising since the ‘30s. As the media depict the most beautiful people in society, men and women alike have begun to place far more importance on appearance. For men, this can be to show his social status to other men and as they, cross-culturally, value a woman’s attractiveness not only for her reproductive potential, but also as a sign that they can obtain a high status, attractive woman.

"Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder. It's in the eye of the infant right from the moment of birth, and possibly before birth," the report quoted Alan Slater, lead author of the study, assaying.

The Exeter team tested infants averaging two days old, but the group also included some born only a few hours earlier. Each baby was held in front of the pictures and closely watched by researchers to the left and right. The observers followed the baby's eyes and pressed a button whenever the infant looked at the image on their side.

The researchers found that babies generally would flick their gaze between one picture and another, but spent significantly more time looking at the fashion model than the plain-looking woman

By repeated exposer to the various parts of the female body through music videos, ads or films, men are bound to lose interest in long-term intimate relationship, as they will value a woman only for her parts and not be able to develop the ability to relate to her. This is the reason, why most people experiencing problems in their intimate life.

Supposing, by contrast, we prefer more subdued, delicate bird-song or more restrained, quieter colors in our flower beds, what then? Our scale of values will differ, and our response to the new song or the new garden will not be the same we will find, them ever beauty or gaudy. It all depends on the previous experience that have been fed into the brain and which have established the rules of the song game or the flower game.

If stated boldly like this, these comments seem rather obvious, it must be remembered that the cherished idea that there is such a thing as intrinsic beauty still clings on touchiously and against all the evidence. Nowhere is this more vividly encountered them in the world of “feminine beauty.” The world of the human female form, of beauty contents and artists ideal models, for centuries men have argued over the finer points of feminine perfection, but no one has ever succeeded in settling the matter once and for all.

Beautiful girls still persist in changing shape as epoch succeeds epoch or as the girl watcher travels from society to society. In every instance there are fixed ideals, which are hotly defended. To one culture it is vitally important that a girl should be extremely plump, to another it is essential that she should be slender and willowy, to yet another she must have an hourglass shape with a tiny waist. As for the face, there is whole variety of preferred properties with almost every feature subject to different “beauty rules” in different regions and phases of history. Straight, pointed noses and small snub noses blue eyes or dark eyes. Fleshy lips or petal lips each have its followers.

Because of these variations an extraordinary situation develops. When attempts are made to find cross-cultural beauty queens, as in the Miss World or as Miss Universe contests, whether we move across space or time these are dramatic variations in the female body ideals, and all hope of finding an intrinsically perfect feminine beauty must be abandoned. These does not of course, mean that there are no basic human female signals, “Nor” does it mean those human males is necessarily lacking to inform responses to such signals. Gender signals and sexual invitation signals are present in our species, just as in any other. But sexual body signal of that kind are present in all human females, regardless of how ugly or beautiful each individual may be considered to be by local rules. An ugly girl can own a complete set of female anatomical features, possess efficient reproductive organs, be an excellent friend, and have a charming personality, and yet despite all this a human male may find her so visually unattractive that he cannot bring himself to mate with her.

This would be hard for a monkey to understand. A male monkey does not consider the comparative beauty of a female of his species. To him a female is female. There are no ugly monkeys. But the opposite sex and as beauty rated individuals. His highly developed taxophilic urge invades almost of all of his areas of interest, classifying and grading remorselessly as it spreads, and his response to human females is no exception. The result is that a tiny variation in says, the tilt of a nose or the curve of a cheek, can make all the difference between attraction and repulsion.

In fact, it now appears that everyone is born with a pre-programmed understanding of what makes a person attractive

Obviously, the precise set of the face or, for that matter, the exact measurements of the female breast, make little difference to the qualities of a female in practical term, as a life long breeding partner. But these are the subtle ties that have arisen as important elements in human beauty rating and which frequently play a part in mate selection.

This invasion of the sexual arena by our powerful aesthetic tendencies has led to a number of social curiosities. At one end of the scale there are the thriving industries of plastic surgery, beauty culture and cosmetics which enhance local visual appeal, so that female who may in reality he had cooks, poor mothers and selfish companions are able to promote themselves as potential mates of the highest order. At the other end of the scale are the lonely-hearts clubs that cater for at least some of the many isolated and rejected females who although they might be good cooks, excellent mothers and wonderful companions nevertheless remain alone and unmated merely because of their plain features or unacceptable figures.

If this trend were to grow it would eventually Lead to an increasingly wide gulf between the “beautiful” people and the “ugly” as beauty married beauty and ugly married ugly. When people marry, mate selection is often based on the partner’s beauty rating rather than on their qualities as life long breeding companions. As a result such pair bonds are frequently unsuccessful. Several factors help to prevent this, not the least of that is the fact that a “Rich ugly” may sometimes be preferred to a “poor beauty”. Also many individuals refuse to allow their compulsive beauty rating to dominate mate-selection when the final, crucial moment of decision arrives. Instead they make their choice on more appropriate grounds, even though they have always paid up service to the aesthetic appeals of the human body. Even after establishing a mate ship such individuals may continue to play the human beauty game, when assessing film stars, pin-ups or passers by in the street, but they relegate it to their fantasy worlds and do not permit aesthetic invasions to over power their real life breeding systems.

But what is the meaning of sex how it came in to existence and what is the importance of sex in Human life, one has to understand this first then only we will be justifying the sex knowledge importance.